On Sep 20, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Costin Manolache wrote:
On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and
resulted in much more stable Tomcat code. There is no such issue
for TC
6.0.x (just a disagreement on the comet API, which we have already
dealt
with, and decided to let software-darwinism take it's course).
When I suggested a TC 6.0 and 6.5 dual approach, Costin said:
"Strong -1 on this. Done that - didn't work so good, and it
doesn't solve
the core problem - it's not about 'cutting edge' versus
'stable',..."
Context needed :-)
-1 was on having a TC6.5 as a way to resolve conflicts ( so some
people can
make broad
changes in one and some in other without having to 'discuss'/argue/
veto ).
The transition between 5.5 to 6.0 ( AFAIK ) was based on '5.5 is
mostly
frozen, only important
and select changes backported, all new activity on 6.0'.
I also don't think a 6.5 is needed unless there is no huge
architecture and
API change, as it happened in 5.5->6.0,
but my 'strong -1' was for the reasons above. I don't mind having
a 6.5 -
if both Remy and Filip and all other
people who are actively developing move to 6.5 so changes get the
right
review ( instead of 'that's my branch, that's yours' )
Umm... the issue is/was 4.0/4.1 and 5.0/5.5 not
any 5.x->6.x stuff. The major number has nothing to
do with it. Who said anything about the major number
transition? Maybe that's why you voted -1 because I
didn't explain the idea more clearly... sorry!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
